The real question is whether or not the members of this new Commander Panel were already aware of the *Surviving* Non-Disparagement Clause that they were agreeing to with Wizards of the Coast / Hasbro. If it were up to me knowing the long-term consequences of this decision I wouldn't agree to the terms. Just because these members' passion for the format outweighs Wizards of the Coast / Hasbro's corruption, doesn't excuse the consequences that will be felt within the Commander community with the new Commander Panel taking all the blame for what should ultimately be Wizards of the Coast / Hasbro's fault to begin with. Wizards of the Coast / Hasbro wants to avoid having to go to court over this issue. Plain and simple.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Jesus Christ, Who Is God Revealed In The Flesh, Bless America.
"Restriction breeds creativity." - Sheldon Menery on EDH / Commander in Magic: The Gathering
"I'd much rather prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery." - Anonymous
"Most men and women will grow up to love their servitude and will never dream of revolution." - Aldous Huxley, Brave New World
"Every life decision is always a risk / reward proposition." - Sanjay Gupta
The real question is whether or not the members of this new Commander Panel were already aware of the *Surviving* Non-Disparagement Clause that they were agreeing to with Wizards of the Coast / Hasbro.
Well, i'd kind of assume Wizards to not make announcements before they've got the appropriate legalities cleared but then again it's nothing but a wild assumption though.
If it were up to me knowing the long-term consequences of this decision I wouldn't agree to the terms.
It somewhat depends i think. If i were just some random guy not interested in or at least not reliant on playing the social media game i might actually consider taking a nice paycheck (if you are going to put lifelong restrictions on me while using me as a patsy you better be ready to fork over a nice chunk of money...) for practically doing nothing much at all. People like JLK on the other hand... I'm not sure what he's thinking. He was already somewhat phony due to being quite close to Wizards but now he's nothing more than a mouthpiece anymore. Why would anyone listen to him when he can do nothing but praise Wizards or shut up anyways? Maybe he's banking on people being naive/ignorant and he might be right about that in the end but i think this move might as well backfire quite heavily.
Just because these members' passion for the format outweighs Wizards of the Coast / Hasbro's corruption, doesn't excuse the consequences that will be felt within the Commander community with the new Commander Panel taking all the blame for what should ultimately be Wizards of the Coast / Hasbro's fault to begin with.
Yeah, assuming the panel will have more of a say than the committee, which seemingly had to talk with Wizards for years and wait for affected products to leave the shelves is kind of delusional. I'd be quite surprised if Wizards would be taking any kind of suggestion that runs contrary to their own interests seriously. I mean, why would they? The panel members can't do anything but silently resign anyways.
We've compiled some of the more common questions and comments from discussion in the last few weeks with Gavin's responses here. Please keep these in mind as you continue to talk about the format with your fellow players!
• **Was this change amicable with the former Commander Rules Committee? **
After several discussions with the Commander Rules Committee, that group decided to give us the format. We take this as a high honor and want to continue doing what has made the format so popular. We still plan to involve the community to keep this a community-focused format. More on that in the near future.
• **Are the Brackets meant to replace Rule 0 or assist in making it a more approachable topic with a new playgroup? **
Nothing is ever going to be better for matchmaking that talking with your table! The bracket system is one way to help matchmake, but it's just a tool like asking about power levels or similar. It's totally optional.
• **Where does Competitive Commander sit in your vision for the Commander format? Will it have a separate ban list?**
We design for the more common "casual" Commander format, but we certainly keep tabs on competitive Commander as well. We want to make sure it's represented in our new format panel so players who enjoy that format can contribute as well. We do not plan to have a separate ban list.
• **Has the team considered a point system rather than brackets for determining deck power? **
It has certainly been discussed. Commander is a lot about crafting the game experience you want, and points specifically are very difficult. With 100 cards in your deck, and a lot of cards that could be various points value, the granularity gets very hard to tune – and it requires a lot of work on players' parts. There are elements of the points system that are good and we can learn lessons from, but an exact point system like Canadian Highlander is not what we plan to do at this time.
• **How are you accounting for combinations of cards, rather than individual ones, when determining bracket levels?
**
Listing cards in conjunction with one another is one thing we can do for specific bracket levels.
• **Brackets seem unhelpful with my current deck designs. Why should my precon be considered a "4" if it has Vampiric Tutor in it and no other bracket 4 cards? **
Brackets are a framework for discussion, and nothing beats talking about the kind of game you want to play. In these cases, you can tell your table, "Hey, my deck is much lower than a 4 but has Vampiric Tutor. Is that okay?"
fair warning… this last question might bring some concern
• **Are you reversing the ban list changes made on 9/23? Are any older bans to be overturned with this new take on the Ban list? **
Upcoming, there will be an evaluation of the banned card list. Those cards, as well as others on the banned list, will all be part of that review.
it means the most recent bannings Will infact be part of the review of the ban list.
fair warning… this last question might bring some concern
• **Are you reversing the ban list changes made on 9/23? Are any older bans to be overturned with this new take on the Ban list? **
Upcoming, there will be an evaluation of the banned card list. Those cards, as well as others on the banned list, will all be part of that review.
it means the most recent bannings Will infact be part of the review of the ban list.
Personally, I think they should leave them on the banlist forever with a note that they don't give in to death threats. I know it will make some people upset, but it would strongly discourage a repeat. Unbanning, on the other hand, sends a message that you can throw a whiny little fit and get your way.
fair warning… this last question might bring some concern
• **Are you reversing the ban list changes made on 9/23? Are any older bans to be overturned with this new take on the Ban list? **
Upcoming, there will be an evaluation of the banned card list. Those cards, as well as others on the banned list, will all be part of that review.
it means the most recent bannings Will infact be part of the review of the ban list.
To be honest i don't really get why people put that much weight on this particular point. Especially not when Wizards plans to turn the whole ban system upside down with their brackets anyways (even if it's technically "optional"). I get that some people care quite a bit about those cards as they play a major role in their meta (i mean, this is mostly about Lotus, Crypt and probably Dockside, right?) but beyond that is it really such a big deal? Sure i kinda miss Crypt as it was an iconic card with a lot of history but even there it's mostly about nostalgic value. I certainly don't view it as an auto-include and the amount of my decks that actually want/"need" to run it is miniscule. The others aren't exactly pet cards of mine (slight understatement...) but i've put up with them before and i probably could continue to do so, so what?
When i read the FAQ it's rather things like "we design for commander" that sound like a threat to me. Sure, especially after the last couple years, expecting Wizards to quit meddling with things is a straight up pipe dream but that still would be pretty much the only thing i care for as i more or less take for granted that anything else is going to be detrimental in one way or another. All in all Wizards is going to do what Wizards is going to do. I'll just wait and watch from the side lines. Maybe they'll surprise me. I doubt it but who knows? There's nothing i can do to affect any of this anyways.
Wizards of the Coast / Hasbro wants to avoid having to go to court over this issue. Plain and simple.
I probably missed something there but why would they have to go to court over this?
In the happenstance that Wizards of the Coast / Hasbro violates the 1st Amendment of the U.S. Constitution as non-disparagement clauses are unlawful. There's several studies suggesting that non-disparagement clauses are in fact unconstitutional. Do we know whether or not Gavin Verhey's Pauper Format Panel also contains a non-disparagement clause as well? Every lawsuit filed against Wizards of the Coast / Hasbro in the last several years has been dismissed and given how much power their lawyers and attorneys have it's really no surprise at all. My question is how long will they be able to get away with it until the system crashes down?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Jesus Christ, Who Is God Revealed In The Flesh, Bless America.
"Restriction breeds creativity." - Sheldon Menery on EDH / Commander in Magic: The Gathering
"I'd much rather prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery." - Anonymous
"Most men and women will grow up to love their servitude and will never dream of revolution." - Aldous Huxley, Brave New World
"Every life decision is always a risk / reward proposition." - Sanjay Gupta
fair warning… this last question might bring some concern
• **Are you reversing the ban list changes made on 9/23? Are any older bans to be overturned with this new take on the Ban list? **
Upcoming, there will be an evaluation of the banned card list. Those cards, as well as others on the banned list, will all be part of that review.
it means the most recent bannings Will infact be part of the review of the ban list.
Personally, I think they should leave them on the banlist forever with a note that they don't give in to death threats. I know it will make some people upset, but it would strongly discourage a repeat. Unbanning, on the other hand, sends a message that you can throw a whiny little fit and get your way.
Valid point. I kind of forgot about that angle (and your post wast up yet when i wrote mine). Poor Crypt did nothing wrong but i guess priorities have to be set, so let them weep.
Wizards of the Coast / Hasbro wants to avoid having to go to court over this issue. Plain and simple.
I probably missed something there but why would they have to go to court over this?
In the happenstance that Wizards of the Coast / Hasbro violates the 1st Amendment of the U.S. Constitution as non-disparagement clauses are unlawful. There's several studies suggesting that non-disparagement clauses are in fact unconstitutional. Do we know whether or not Gavin Verhey's Pauper Format Panel also contains a non-disparagement clause as well? Every lawsuit filed against Wizards of the Coast / Hasbro in the last several years has been dismissed and given how much power their lawyers and attorneys have it's really no surprise at all. My question is how long will they be able to get away with it until the system crashes down?
Ah, i see. US legislation isn't much of my strong side (being from the other side of the pond and all that). In regards to what we know: Actually very, very little. If it hadn't been for the single guy posting on Twitter we wouldn't even know a single thing about the contractual obligations of the panel members. In any case actually "getting right" (obviously assuming one is right) is often times pretty tricky. The justice system is a scary thing where 100% predictions don't exist and rolling the dice involves not only fronting quite a lot of expenses but also being ready to swallow them in case of an unfavorable outcome. As shitty as it is taking a loss and walking away is often times a wiser choice than trying to battle things out in the courts no matter how obvious the matter at hand seems and having indefinitely deep pockets comes with the "privilege" to abuse that. Well, at least that's kinda how it is around here but i fear it's probably pretty similar elsewhere too. A giant like Hasbro is simply "playing" with massive advantage.
Wizards of the Coast / Hasbro wants to avoid having to go to court over this issue. Plain and simple.
I probably missed something there but why would they have to go to court over this?
In the happenstance that Wizards of the Coast / Hasbro violates the 1st Amendment of the U.S. Constitution as non-disparagement clauses are unlawful. There's several studies suggesting that non-disparagement clauses are in fact unconstitutional. Do we know whether or not Gavin Verhey's Pauper Format Panel also contains a non-disparagement clause as well? Every lawsuit filed against Wizards of the Coast / Hasbro in the last several years has been dismissed and given how much power their lawyers and attorneys have it's really no surprise at all. My question is how long will they be able to get away with it until the system crashes down?
I can clear this up. The Bill of Rights is actually a bill of negative rights for the government. What it says is what the governmentcan't do. So the 1st Amendment states that the government cannot stop the people from peaceful assembly, worship, the press and talking, while the 2nd states the government cannot stop the ownership of arms and the 4 says the government cannot put troops in your house. So companies are allowed to muzzle people as much as they like (and why it's legal for a company to ban firearms from their premises). This is why NDAs have been enforceable for quite some time. Whether the "survival clause" is enforceable is another question.
The other question here is what the Washington State constitution (each state has its own) or laws that would prevent such a contract from being enforceable. While the Bill of Rights focuses on what the government can't do, Amendment 10 states that anything not covered by the US constitution is for the states to figure out independently (this is why Roe was overturned, the courts said it's for the states to figure out). If the Washington State Constitution has anything regarding a person's right to speech no matter what or there are laws that limit NDA's, that would allow members to bring a suit against Hasbro/WotC in Washington.
Anyway most of the panel is good (I’m actually pretty stoked on attack on cardboard since I’m a subscriber to his channel)
but JLK coming back… really really questionable. Let’s just say the video of his thoughts on the bannings you might lose a lot of respect for him (infact you'll notice Racheal gets really uncomfortable in the video). And plus he’s absolutely furious about the bannings and not just because he wasn't informed by RC.
And Jimmy and Racheal’s videos on should be banned or unbanned video… quite a few of their choices are atrocious
jimmy Is on team unban crypt and lotus. But good news Racheal still stands serve on keeping them banned.
but here’s the atrocity
… they think sylvan primodial is unbannable. I've seen it in action on “no ban” cards game play that thing is just miserable beyond belief (and it was reanimate and animate dead on very little turns pretty much uncatchable)
also thought sundering Titan is unbannable and that has similar problems to primodial
and recurring nightmare I saw that too… no way keep it banned and to make matters worse… the example was sacing a sundering
Wild that people are pretty hung up on the boilerplate vendor contract stuff. If you own a business don't hire a vendor who is gonna talk **** about you to all its customers, even if you no longer work with them. NDC's (not NDA's stop saying NDA's y'all are driving me insane) are really standard and that's why usually when a court case is settled you don't see people saying "oh those #$^%'s cheated me" because the paid out settlement is agreed to be paid out as long as you're not stirring up the pot.
The court stuff is a red herring this stuff rarely makes it to court unless it's really egregious or very provable that you, idk, lost them a million dollar deal with some other outlet bc you were talking ****. All it really does is nullify any contract agreements or planned payments that extend beyond the life of a contract (a pension, for instance). Given that no one has actually seen the contract, just a guy who posted on social media about one portion of it, there's no real judging if this actually has any kind of chilling effect on saying "I think this card is bad" or whatever it is people are imagining the first amendment would protect.
The court stuff is a red herring this stuff rarely makes it to court unless it's really egregious or very provable that you, idk, lost them a million dollar deal with some other outlet bc you were talking *****. All it really does is nullify any contract agreements or planned payments that extend beyond the life of a contract (a pension, for instance). Given that no one has actually seen the contract, just a guy who posted on social media about one portion of it, there's no real judging if this actually has any kind of chilling effect on saying "I think this card is bad" or whatever it is people are imagining the first amendment would protect.
Well, i guess that kind of depends on what the person wants to say and also how easily intimidated they are (you are giving a corporate behemoth leverage to put you in place after all and for that it doesn't need to actually win anything but just exhaust your resources). In case of a big social media personality i don't think a claim of harsh public criticism having resulted in loss of business would be all that far fetched, even if in cases like JLK it might be not really all that relevant as he was probably already weighting his words pretty carefully as i figure he likes his inside information and him not being the type social media personality that would profit from controversy. In general i still view someone practically monetizing his opinion having said opinion contractually pacified as a problematic constellation.
I agree on the NDC not being overly surprising. Personally i'd feel a couple years after exit would seem a bit more reasonable though and i think it's simply a bad match with a bunch of the people in question. It also kinda sneakily undermines the community involvement the whole thing is supposed to represent in my opinion.
Early from the announcement it was said they are gonna make a commander panel in vein to the pauper panel
We have are panel now (note: some could leave and new ones could come in)
Attack on Cardboard
Bandit
Ben Wheeler (CAG member)
Charolette Sable (CAG member)
Dequan Watson (CAG memeber)
Deco (Voice for Cedh)
Greg Sablan (CAG member)
Ittetu
Josh lee Kwai (CAG member… actually he's coming back basically)
Kristen Gregory (Another Returning CAG member)
Lua Stardust (Voice for Cedh)
Olivia Gobert-Hicks (RC member)
Rachel Weeks (CAG member)
Rebell Lily (CAG member)
Scott Larabee (RC member)
Tim Willoughby (CAG member)
Toby Elliott (RC member)
So TDLR it’s three out of five of the Rules Committee and most of the CAG plus a couple of voices for Cedh and other countries
"Restriction breeds creativity." - Sheldon Menery on EDH / Commander in Magic: The Gathering
"I'd much rather prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery." - Anonymous
"Most men and women will grow up to love their servitude and will never dream of revolution." - Aldous Huxley, Brave New World
"Every life decision is always a risk / reward proposition." - Sanjay Gupta
Well, i'd kind of assume Wizards to not make announcements before they've got the appropriate legalities cleared but then again it's nothing but a wild assumption though.
It somewhat depends i think. If i were just some random guy not interested in or at least not reliant on playing the social media game i might actually consider taking a nice paycheck (if you are going to put lifelong restrictions on me while using me as a patsy you better be ready to fork over a nice chunk of money...) for practically doing nothing much at all. People like JLK on the other hand... I'm not sure what he's thinking. He was already somewhat phony due to being quite close to Wizards but now he's nothing more than a mouthpiece anymore. Why would anyone listen to him when he can do nothing but praise Wizards or shut up anyways? Maybe he's banking on people being naive/ignorant and he might be right about that in the end but i think this move might as well backfire quite heavily.
Yeah, assuming the panel will have more of a say than the committee, which seemingly had to talk with Wizards for years and wait for affected products to leave the shelves is kind of delusional. I'd be quite surprised if Wizards would be taking any kind of suggestion that runs contrary to their own interests seriously. I mean, why would they? The panel members can't do anything but silently resign anyways.
I probably missed something there but why would they have to go to court over this?
fair warning… this last question might bring some concern
it means the most recent bannings Will infact be part of the review of the ban list.
2024 Average Peasant Cube|and Discussion
Because I have more decks than fit in a signature
Useful Resources:
MTGSalvation tags
EDHREC
ManabaseCrafter
To be honest i don't really get why people put that much weight on this particular point. Especially not when Wizards plans to turn the whole ban system upside down with their brackets anyways (even if it's technically "optional"). I get that some people care quite a bit about those cards as they play a major role in their meta (i mean, this is mostly about Lotus, Crypt and probably Dockside, right?) but beyond that is it really such a big deal? Sure i kinda miss Crypt as it was an iconic card with a lot of history but even there it's mostly about nostalgic value. I certainly don't view it as an auto-include and the amount of my decks that actually want/"need" to run it is miniscule. The others aren't exactly pet cards of mine (slight understatement...) but i've put up with them before and i probably could continue to do so, so what?
When i read the FAQ it's rather things like "we design for commander" that sound like a threat to me. Sure, especially after the last couple years, expecting Wizards to quit meddling with things is a straight up pipe dream but that still would be pretty much the only thing i care for as i more or less take for granted that anything else is going to be detrimental in one way or another. All in all Wizards is going to do what Wizards is going to do. I'll just wait and watch from the side lines. Maybe they'll surprise me. I doubt it but who knows? There's nothing i can do to affect any of this anyways.
"Restriction breeds creativity." - Sheldon Menery on EDH / Commander in Magic: The Gathering
"I'd much rather prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery." - Anonymous
"Most men and women will grow up to love their servitude and will never dream of revolution." - Aldous Huxley, Brave New World
"Every life decision is always a risk / reward proposition." - Sanjay Gupta
Valid point. I kind of forgot about that angle (and your post wast up yet when i wrote mine). Poor Crypt did nothing wrong but i guess priorities have to be set, so let them weep.
Ah, i see. US legislation isn't much of my strong side (being from the other side of the pond and all that). In regards to what we know: Actually very, very little. If it hadn't been for the single guy posting on Twitter we wouldn't even know a single thing about the contractual obligations of the panel members. In any case actually "getting right" (obviously assuming one is right) is often times pretty tricky. The justice system is a scary thing where 100% predictions don't exist and rolling the dice involves not only fronting quite a lot of expenses but also being ready to swallow them in case of an unfavorable outcome. As shitty as it is taking a loss and walking away is often times a wiser choice than trying to battle things out in the courts no matter how obvious the matter at hand seems and having indefinitely deep pockets comes with the "privilege" to abuse that. Well, at least that's kinda how it is around here but i fear it's probably pretty similar elsewhere too. A giant like Hasbro is simply "playing" with massive advantage.
I can clear this up. The Bill of Rights is actually a bill of negative rights for the government. What it says is what the government can't do. So the 1st Amendment states that the government cannot stop the people from peaceful assembly, worship, the press and talking, while the 2nd states the government cannot stop the ownership of arms and the 4 says the government cannot put troops in your house. So companies are allowed to muzzle people as much as they like (and why it's legal for a company to ban firearms from their premises). This is why NDAs have been enforceable for quite some time. Whether the "survival clause" is enforceable is another question.
The other question here is what the Washington State constitution (each state has its own) or laws that would prevent such a contract from being enforceable. While the Bill of Rights focuses on what the government can't do, Amendment 10 states that anything not covered by the US constitution is for the states to figure out independently (this is why Roe was overturned, the courts said it's for the states to figure out). If the Washington State Constitution has anything regarding a person's right to speech no matter what or there are laws that limit NDA's, that would allow members to bring a suit against Hasbro/WotC in Washington.
but JLK coming back… really really questionable. Let’s just say the video of his thoughts on the bannings you might lose a lot of respect for him (infact you'll notice Racheal gets really uncomfortable in the video). And plus he’s absolutely furious about the bannings and not just because he wasn't informed by RC.
And Jimmy and Racheal’s videos on should be banned or unbanned video… quite a few of their choices are atrocious
jimmy Is on team unban crypt and lotus. But good news Racheal still stands serve on keeping them banned.
but here’s the atrocity
… they think sylvan primodial is unbannable. I've seen it in action on “no ban” cards game play that thing is just miserable beyond belief (and it was reanimate and animate dead on very little turns pretty much uncatchable)
also thought sundering Titan is unbannable and that has similar problems to primodial
and recurring nightmare I saw that too… no way keep it banned and to make matters worse… the example was sacing a sundering
the only unbans that can be agreeable is coalition victory and maybe biorhythm
The court stuff is a red herring this stuff rarely makes it to court unless it's really egregious or very provable that you, idk, lost them a million dollar deal with some other outlet bc you were talking ****. All it really does is nullify any contract agreements or planned payments that extend beyond the life of a contract (a pension, for instance). Given that no one has actually seen the contract, just a guy who posted on social media about one portion of it, there's no real judging if this actually has any kind of chilling effect on saying "I think this card is bad" or whatever it is people are imagining the first amendment would protect.
Well, i guess that kind of depends on what the person wants to say and also how easily intimidated they are (you are giving a corporate behemoth leverage to put you in place after all and for that it doesn't need to actually win anything but just exhaust your resources). In case of a big social media personality i don't think a claim of harsh public criticism having resulted in loss of business would be all that far fetched, even if in cases like JLK it might be not really all that relevant as he was probably already weighting his words pretty carefully as i figure he likes his inside information and him not being the type social media personality that would profit from controversy. In general i still view someone practically monetizing his opinion having said opinion contractually pacified as a problematic constellation.
I agree on the NDC not being overly surprising. Personally i'd feel a couple years after exit would seem a bit more reasonable though and i think it's simply a bad match with a bunch of the people in question. It also kinda sneakily undermines the community involvement the whole thing is supposed to represent in my opinion.